IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ERICSSON INC., and
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-895
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA LLP,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively,
“Ericsson”), file this Original Complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America LLP, (collectively,
“Defendants” or “Samsung”), and allege as follows:
BACKGROUND
1.
Despite nearly two years of negotiations involving the most senior
management of both companies, Samsung has refused to renew its expired license to
Ericsson's industry leading portfolio of telecommunication patents on the same fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms that Samsung’s competitors have previously
accepted.
Ericsson has therefore filed this suit against Samsung seeking the court’s
protection of Ericsson’s valuable intellectual property rights.
-1McKool 396259v5
2.
For more than two decades, Ericsson has pioneered the development of the
modern cellular network. Due to the research and development work of its more than one
hundred thousand employees, over one thousand networks with more than two billion
subscriptions utilize Ericsson network equipment. Forty percent of all mobile calls are
made through Ericsson systems. Ericsson’s equipment can be found in more than one
hundred and eighty countries.
3.
As a result of its extensive research and development efforts, Ericsson has
been awarded more than thirty thousand patents worldwide. Ericsson is widely viewed as
one of the leading innovators in the field of cellular telephony.
4.
Ericsson owns and patented hundreds of inventions that are essential to the
GSM, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, LTE and 802.11 wireless standards (“standard-essential
patents”). Ericsson has repeatedly committed to license its standard-essential patents on
fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. Ericsson also owns a valuable
portfolio of patents that, while not essential to compliance with any industry standards, are
globally used to design and manufacture cellular handsets, smartphones, tablet computers,
televisions, and many other electronic devices (“implementation patents”).
5.
Ericsson has widely licensed its patents. It has entered into more than one
hundred license agreements for its standard-essential patents. These licenses evidence the
FRAND royalties that the telecommunications industry has agreed to pay Ericsson.
Ericsson re-invests much of the licensing revenue it receives under these agreements into
inventing the future generation of telecommunications standards.
6.
Samsung previously licensed Ericsson’s standard-essential patents in 2001
and renewed that license in 2007. Samsung’s license has now expired. Samsung has sold
-2McKool 396259v5
hundreds of millions of unlicensed cellular handsets, smartphones, tablet computers, and
televisions since the expiration of its license, including its flagship Galaxy S III
smartphone.
7.
Ericsson has extended multiple offers to Samsung to renew the license on
FRAND terms during the past two years of negotiations between the parties. These
negotiations have been unsuccessful for the simple reason that Samsung refuses to pay the
FRAND rate paid by its competitors for Ericsson’s standard-essential patents. Instead,
Samsung demands Ericsson renew its license at a rate that is a small fraction of the rate
other similarly situated companies pay Ericsson. Samsung’s refusal to pay a FRAND rate
gives it an unfair competitive advantage over its competitors who have licensed Ericsson’s
patents.
8.
Samsung has a history of manipulating its position on the amount of a
FRAND rate depending on whether it finds itself as the licensor or licensee in a particular
negotiation. The most recent example occurred when Samsung asserted its own patents,
which it alleged were standard-essential against Apple. At the trial of that matter in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Samsung asserted all
companies implementing a standard in its products must seek out and accept a license on
FRAND terms. Yet, when the tables are turned and Samsung finds itself in the position of
being the prospective licensee, it now refuses to license Ericsson’s standard-essential
portfolio at FRAND rates.
9.
FRAND licensing is a two-way street. Contrary to Samsung’s behavior,
patent licensing under FRAND terms does not change from one day to the next depending
on whether a company finds itself aligned as a licensor or licensee. Instead, FRAND
-3McKool 396259v5
licensing requires that both the licensor is fair and reasonable in providing licensing terms
and the licensee is fair and reasonable in accepting them. Despite Ericsson’s best efforts to
negotiate a license, including many alternative FRAND royalty structures and frameworks
that Ericsson offered to Samsung, Samsung refuses to renew its license or to cease
infringing.
10.
Even more egregiously, Samsung has refused to provide Ericsson a license
to its allegedly standard-essential patents on FRAND terms. Upon information and belief,
Samsung refuses to license Ericsson under any declared standard-essential patents that it
owns in an effort to compel Ericsson to license its patent portfolio at a small fraction of the
rates that its competitors pay. This position violates Samsung’s FRAND commitment.
ERICSSON
11.
Plaintiff Ericsson Inc. is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of
business at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
12.
Plaintiff Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is a corporation organized under
the laws of the country of Sweden with its principal place of business at Torshamnsgatan
23, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm Sweden.
13.
Ericsson has a long history of innovative technical contributions, including
the patents-at-issue in this lawsuit. In addition, some of Ericsson’s other accomplishments
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
in 1878, Ericsson sold its first telephone;
in 1977, Ericsson introduced the world’s first digital telephone exchange;
in 1981, Ericsson introduced its first mobile telephone system, NMT;
in 1991, Ericsson launched 2G phones on the world’s first 2G network;
in 1994, Ericsson invented Bluetooth;
in 2001, Ericsson made the world’s first 3G call for Vodafone in the UK; and
in 2009, Ericsson started the world’s first 4G network and made the first 4G call.
-4McKool 396259v5
14.
Ericsson’s innovation continues today and into the future.
Ericsson
envisions a connected future, in which there will be more than fifty billion connected
devices, all of which will require better networks and greater capacity. To that end,
Ericsson has more than twenty thousand employees working on research and development,
much of which is focused on new improvements in wireless and radio access technology.
Ericsson’s efforts have resulted in advances in data speeds, improved voice quality, and
better network performance. Ericsson’s technological advances do not come cheaply or
easily, as Ericsson invests approximately 15% of its budget in research and development
costs annually.
THE DEFENDANTS
15.
Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Electronics”) is a
corporation organized under the laws of the country of Korea with its principal place of
business at Samsung Electronics Building, 1320-10, Seocho 2-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul
137-857 Korea. Samsung Electronics manufactures, imports into the United States, sells
and/or offers for sale in the United States telephones, base stations, televisions, computers,
Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other devices for use in a mobile communications network
or a wireless LAN.
In addition, Samsung Electronics’s telephones, base stations,
televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other devices for use in a mobile
communications network or a wireless LAN are marketed, offered for sale, and/or sold
throughout the United States, including within this District. Samsung Electronics can be
served with process by serving the Texas Secretary of State.
16.
On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
(“Samsung Electronics America”), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New
-5McKool 396259v5
Jersey 07660. Samsung Electronics America manufactures, imports into the United States,
sells and/or offers for sale in the United States telephones, base stations, televisions,
computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other devices for use in a mobile
communications network or a wireless LAN. In addition, Samsung Electronics America’s
telephones, base stations, televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other
devices for use in a mobile communications network or a wireless LAN are marketed,
offered for sale, and/or sold throughout the United States, including within this District.
Samsung Electronics America can be served with process by serving its registered agent, C
T Corporation System, located at 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 752014234.
17.
On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Telecommunications
America L.P. (“Samsung Telecommunications”), is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1301 E. Lookout Drive,
Richardson, Texas 75082. Samsung Telecommunications manufactures, imports into the
United States, sells and/or offers for sale in the United States telephones, base stations,
televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other devices for use in a mobile
communications network or a wireless LAN. In addition, Samsung Telecommunications’
telephones, base stations, televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other
devices for use in a mobile communications network or wireless LAN are marketed,
offered for sale, and/or sold throughout the United States, including within this District.
Samsung Telecommunications can be served with process by serving its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company dba CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company,
located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
-6McKool 396259v5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18.
This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35
U.S.C. § 101 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1338(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims asserted in
this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The federal and state law claims asserted in this action
rise from a common nucleus of operative fact.
This Court also has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over Ericsson’s Breach of Contract and Equitable
Estoppel claims, which are asserted against Samsung Electronics.
19.
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and
(d) and 1400(b). Ericsson Inc. has its principal place of business within the Eastern
District of Texas.
20.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants have
conducted and do conduct business within the State of Texas. Defendants, directly or
through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ship,
distribute, offer for sale, sell, and advertise (including the provision of an interactive web
page) their products and/or services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the
Eastern District of Texas. Defendants, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries
(including distributors, retailers, and others), have purposefully and voluntarily placed one
or more of their infringing products and/or services, as described below, into the stream of
commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers in the
Eastern District of Texas.
These infringing products and/or services have been and
continue to be purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas.
Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and,
more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas.
-7McKool 396259v5
THE PATENTS
21.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,259,724 (“the ‘724 Patent”), entitled
“Random Access in a Mobile Telecommunications System,” was duly and legally issued to
inventor Riaz Esmailzadeh on July 10, 2001. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire
right, title, and interest in the ‘724 Patent, and is entitled to sue for past and future
infringement.
22.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,400,376 (“the ‘376 Patent”), entitled
“Display Control for Data Processing Device,” was duly and legally issued to inventors
Mona Singh and Robert M. Lands on June 4, 2002. Ericsson owns by assignment the
entire right, title, and interest in the ‘376 Patent, and is entitled to sue for past and future
infringement.
23.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,466,568 (“the ‘568 Patent”), entitled
“Multi-Rate Radiocommunication Systems and Terminals,” was duly and legally issued to
inventors Alex Krister Raith, James Ragsdale, and John Diachina on October 15, 2002.
Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘568 Patent, and is
entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
24.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,502,063 (“the ‘063 Patent”), entitled
“Method and Apparatus for Recursive Filtering of Parallel Intermittent Streams of
Unequally Reliable Time Discrete Data,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Sven
Eriksson, Anders Furuskär, and Stevan Jäverbring on December 31, 2002. Ericsson owns
by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘063 Patent, and is entitled to sue for
past and future infringement.
-8McKool 396259v5
25.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,597,787 (“the ‘787 Patent”), entitled
“Echo Cancellation Device for Cancelling Echos in a Transceiver Unit,” was duly and
legally issued to inventors Ulf Lindgren, Mohan Misra, and John Philipsson on July 22,
2003. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘787 Patent,
and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
26.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,732,069 (“the ‘069 Patent”), entitled
“Linear Predictive Analysis-by-Synthesis Encoding Method and Coder,” was duly and
legally issued to inventors Erik Ekudden and Roar Hagen on May 4, 2004. Ericsson owns
by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘069 Patent, and is entitled to sue for
past and future infringement.
27.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,865,233 (“the ‘233 Patent”), entitled
“Method and System for Control Signalling Enabling Flexible Link Adaptation in a
Radiocommunication System,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Stefan Ericsson,
Anders Furuskär, Stevan Jäverbring, and Mattias Wallman on March 8, 2005. Ericsson
owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘233 Patent, and is entitled to
sue for past and future infringement.
28.
United States Letters Patent No. 6,985,474 (“the ‘474 Patent”), entitled
“Random Access in a Mobile Telecommunications System,” was duly and legally issued to
inventors Erik Dahlman, Maria Gustafsson, and Per Beming on January 10, 2006.
Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘474 Patent, and is
entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
29.
United States Letters Patent No. 7,660,417 (“the ‘417 Patent”), entitled
“Enhanced Security Design for Cryptography in Mobile Communication Systems,” was
-9McKool 396259v5
duly and legally issued to inventors Rolf Blom, Näslund Mats, and Jari Arkko on February
9, 2010. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘417 Patent,
and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
30.
United States Letters Patent No. 7,707,592 (“the ‘592 Patent”), entitled
“Mobile Terminal Application Subsystem and Access Subsystem Architecture Method and
System,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Anders Wesslén, William J. Croughwell
and Sebastian Weber on April 27, 2010. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right,
title, and interest in the ‘592 Patent, and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
31.
United States Letters Patent No. 7,769,078 (“the ‘078 Patent”), entitled
“Apparatus, Methods, and Computer Program Products for Delay Selection in a SpreadSpectrum Receiver,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Douglas Cairns, Ali S.
Khayrallah, and Gregory E. Bottomly on August 3, 2010. Ericsson owns by assignment
the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘078 Patent, and is entitled to sue for past and
future infringement.
32.
United States Letters Patent No. 7,961,709 (“the ‘709 Patent”), entitled
“Secondary Synchronization Sequences for Cell Group Detection in a Cellular
Communications System,” was duly and legally issued to inventors Bengt Lindoff, Robert
Baldemair, and Erik Dahlman on June 14, 2011. Ericsson owns by assignment the entire
right, title, and interest in the ‘709 Patent, and is entitled to sue for past and future
infringement.
33.
United States Letters Patent No. 8,036,150 (“the ‘150 Patent”), entitled
“Method and a Device for Improved Status Reports,” was duly and legally issued to
inventors Michael Meyer, Johan Torsner, and Henning Wiemann on October 11, 2011.
-10McKool 396259v5
Ericsson owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘150 Patent, and is
entitled to sue for past and future infringement.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
34.
The ‘724, ‘376, ‘568, ‘063, ‘787, ‘069, ‘233, ‘474, ‘417, ‘592, ‘078, ‘709,
and ‘150 Patents (collectively, “the Ericsson Patents”) cover inventions relating to
telephones, base stations, televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other
devices for use in a wireless network.
35.
The Defendants have made, used, imported into the United States,
marketed, offered for sale and/or sold in the United States, telephones, base stations,
televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and other devices for use in a wireless
network that infringe the Ericsson Patents, or induce or contribute to the infringement of
the Ericsson Patents by others.
36.
The Defendants have been placed on actual notice of the Ericsson Patents.
At minimum, the filing of this Complaint also constitutes notice in accordance with 35
U.S.C. § 287. Despite such notice, the Defendants continue to import into, market, offer
for sale and/or sell in the United States products that infringe the Ericsson Patents. In
addition, Samsung has previously licensed one or more of the Ericsson Patents, and in its
renewal negotiations Ericsson has given Samsung renewed notice of infringement.
COUNT I.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘724 PATENT
37.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-36 as though
fully set forth herein.
38.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘724 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
-11McKool 396259v5
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘724 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components thereof and
products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices that infringe
the one or more claims of the ‘724 Patent include, but are not limited to, at least the GTI9020A, SGH-A157, SGH-A667, SGH-I777, SGH-I897, SGH-A687, SGH-A797, SGHI927, SGH-I717, SGH-I997, SGH-T759, SGH-T839, SGH-T959, and SGH-T959V.
Further discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
39.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘724 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘724 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘724 Patent. Moreover, the ‘724 Patent, inter alia, was
presented to Samsung during licensing negotiations in the months before the filing of this
lawsuit. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘724 Patent has damaged and will
continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT II.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘376 PATENT
40.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-39 as though
fully set forth herein.
41.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘376 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
-12McKool 396259v5
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘376 Patent including, but not limited to, tablet computers and/or other
devices with wireless capabilities, components thereof and products containing the same.
The accused wireless communication devices that infringe the one or more claims of the
‘376 Patent include, but are not limited to, at least the GT-I9020A, SCH-I100, SCH-I110,
SCH-I200, SCH-I400, SCH-I405, SCH-I405U, SCH-I500 “Mesmerize,” SCH-I500
“Showcase,” SCH-I500 “Fascinate,” SCH-I510, SCH-I515, SCH-I535, SCH-I605, SCHL710, SCH-M828C, SCH-R530, SCH-R680, SCH-R720 “Admire,” SCH-R720 “Vitality,”
SCH-R730, SCH-R760, SCH-R880, SCH-R910, SCH-R915, SCH-R920, SCH-R930,
SCH-R940, SCH-R950, SCH-S720C, SCH-S950C, SGH-I317, SGH-I547, SGH-I577,
SGH-I727, SGH-I827, SGH-I847, SGH-I857, SGH-I897, SGH-I927, SGH-I997, SGHS959G, SGH-T499, SGH-T589, SGH-T679, SGH-T669, SGH-T759, SGH-T769, SGHT839, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SGH-T939, SGH-T959, SGH-T959V, SGH-T989, SGHT999, SPH-D600, SPH-D700, SPH-D710, SPH-D720, SPH-L710, SPH-L900, SPH-M580,
SPH-M820, SPH-M830, SPH-M900, SPH-M920, SPH-M930, SPH-M950, SCH-I905,
GT-P7510, SGH-I957, SGH-I987, SCH-I800, GT-P6210, GT-P7310, GT-P1010, SGHT869, SGH-T859, SGH-T849, SPH-P100, SCH-I815, Galaxy Player 3.6 (TP-GS1CB),
Galaxy Player 4.0 (YP-G1CWY), Galaxy Player 4.2 (YP-GI1C/NA), and Galaxy Player
5.0 (YP-G70C/NAW). Further discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or
models.
42.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘376 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘376 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
-13McKool 396259v5
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘376 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘376
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT III.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘568 PATENT
43.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-42 as though
fully set forth herein.
44.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘568 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘568 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, televisions, computers, Blu-Ray players, cameras, and/or other
devices with wireless capabilities, components thereof and products containing the same.
The accused devices that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘568 Patent include, but
are not limited to, at least the GT-I9020A, SCH-I110 “Illusion,” SCH-I110 “Proclaim,”
SCH-I200, SCH-I400, SCH-I405, SCH-I405U, SCH-I500 “Mesmerize,” SCH-I500
“Showcase,” and SCH-I500 “Fascinate,” SCH-I510, SCH-I515, SCH-I535, SCH-I605,
SCH-L710, SCH-M828C, SCH-R390C “Comment 2,” SCH-R390C “Freeform 4,” SCHR530, SCH-R680, SCH-R730, SCH-R760, SCH-R910, SCH-R915, SCH-R930, SCHR940, SCH-R950, SCH-S720C, SCH-S950C, SGH-I317, SGH-I547, SGH-I557, SGHI667, SGH-I677, SGH-I717, SGH-I727, SGH-I747, SGH-I777, SGH-I827, SGH-I847,
SGH-I857, SGH-I897, SGH-I917, SGH-I927, SGH-I937, SGH-I997, SGH-S959G, SGHT499, SGH-T589, SGH-T679, SGH-T699, SGH-T759, SGH-T769, SGH-T839, SGH-
-14McKool 396259v5
T879, SGH-T889, SGH-T959, SGH-T959V, SGH-T999, SPH-D600, SPH-D700, SPHD710, SPH-D720, SPH-L300, SPH-L710, SPH-L900, SPH-M580, SPH-M820, SPHM830, SPH-M920, SPH-M930, SPH-M950, SCH-I815, GT-P6210, SGH-T869, GTP1010, SCH-I800, SGH-T849, SPH-P100, SGH-I987, SCH-I705, GT-P3113, GT-P5113,
SGH-I957, SCH-I905, GT-P7510, GT-P7310, SGH-T859, GT-N8013ZWYXAR, GTN8013; Samsung’s LED 8000 Series television, LED 7550 Series television, LED 7500
Series television, LED 7150 Series television, LED 7100 Series television, LED 6900
Series television, LED 6550 Series television, LED 6500 Series television, LED 6150
Series television, LED 6100 Series television, LED 6070 Series television, LED 5300
Series television, Plasma 8000 Series television, Plasma 7000 Series television, Plasma
6500 Series television, Plasma 550 Series television, and Plasma 490 Series television;
Samsung’s BD-C7900 Series, BD-C8000 Series, BD-C7500 Series, BD-C6900 Series,
BD-C6800 Series, BD-C6500 Series, BD-D7500 Series, BD-D7000 Series, BD-D6700
Series, BD-D6500 Series, BD-D5700 Series, BD-E6500 Series, BD-E5900 Series, BDE5700 Series, BD-ES6000 Series, BD-EM59C, and BD-Em57C Blu-Ray players;
Samsung’s Series 3 notebook computers, Series 5 notebook computers, Series 7 notebook
computers, Series 9 notebook computers, and Chromebook Series 5 notebook computers;
Series 3 Chromebox computers, Samsung’s DP700A3B computer, Series 7 Slate tablets;
Samsung’s Galaxy Player 3.6 (TP-GS1CB), Galaxy Player 4.0 (YP-G1CWY), Galaxy
Player 4.2 (YP-GI1C/NA), Galaxy Player 5.0 (YP-G70C/NAW); Samsung’s WB150F
camera, DV300F camera, and SH100 camera. Further discovery may reveal additional
infringing products and/or models.
-15McKool 396259v5
45.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘568 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘568 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘568 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘568
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT IV.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘063 PATENT
46.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-45 as though
fully set forth herein.
47.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘063 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘063 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices
that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘063 Patent include, but are not limited to, at
least the GT-I9020A, SCH-I535, SCH-R680, SCH-R850, SCH-U810, SCH-A137, SGHA637, SGH-A657, SGH-A687, SGH-A697, SGH-A767, SGH-A777, SGH-A797, SGHA837, SGH-A867, SGH-A877, SGH-A887, SGH-A897, SGH-A927, SGH-I317, SGHI547, SGH-I577, SGH-I617, SGH-I627, SGH-I637, SGH-I667, SGH-I717, SGH-I727,
SGH-I747, SGH-I777, SGH-I827, SGH-I847, SGH-I857, SGH-I897, SGH-I907, SGHI917, SGH-I927, SGH-I937, SGH-I997, SGH-T119, SGH-T359, SGH-T469, SGH-T479,
-16McKool 396259v5
SGH-T499, SGH-T559, SGH-T589, SGH-T659, SGH-T669, SGH-T679, SGH-T749,
SGH-T759, SGH-T769, SGH-T839, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SGH-T919, SGH-T929,
SGH-T939, SGH-T959, SGH-T959V, SGH-T989, SGH-T999, and SPH-I350. Further
discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
48.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘063 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘063 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘063 Patent. Moreover, the ‘063 Patent, inter alia, was
presented to Samsung during licensing negotiations in the months before the filing of this
lawsuit. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘063 Patent has damaged and will
continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT V.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘787 PATENT
49.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-48 as though
fully set forth herein.
50.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘787 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘787 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices
that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘787 Patent include, but are not limited to, at
-17McKool 396259v5
least the Samsung Captivate Galaxy S (SGH-I897).
Further discovery may reveal
additional infringing products and/or models.
51.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘787 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘787 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘787 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘787
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT VI.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘069 PATENT
52.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-51 as though
fully set forth herein.
53.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘069 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘069 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices
that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘069 Patent include, but are not limited to, at
least the GT-I9020A, SCH-I535, SCH-R680, SCH-R850, SCH-U810, SCH-A137, SGHA637, SGH-A657, SGH-A687, SGH-A697, SGH-A767, SGH-A777, SGH-A797, SGHA837, SGH-A867, SGH-A877, SGH-A887, SGH-A897, SGH-A927, SGH-I317, SGHI547, SGH-I577, SGH-I617, SGH-I627, SGH-I637, SGH-I667, SGH-I717, SGH-I727,
-18McKool 396259v5
SGH-I747, SGH-I777, SGH-I827, SGH-I847, SGH-I857, SGH-I897, SGH-I907, SGHI917, SGH-I927, SGH-I937, SGH-I997, SGH-T119, SGH-T359, SGH-T469, SGH-T479,
SGH-T499, SGH-T559, SGH-T589, SGH-T659, SGH-T669, SGH-T679, SGH-T749,
SGH-T759, SGH-T769, SGH-T839, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SGH-T919, SGH-T929,
SGH-T939, SGH-T959, SGH-T959V, SGH-T989, SGH-T999, and SPH-I350. Further
discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
54.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘069 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘069 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘069 Patent. Moreover, the ‘069 Patent, inter alia, was
presented to Samsung during licensing negotiations in the months before the filing of this
lawsuit. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘069 Patent has damaged and will
continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT VII.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘233 PATENT
55.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-54 as though
fully set forth herein.
56.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘233 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘233 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
-19McKool 396259v5
thereof and products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices
that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘233 Patent include, but are not limited to, at
least the GT-I9020A, SCH-I535, SCH-R680, SCH-R850, SCH-U810, SCH-A137, SGHA637, SGH-A657, SGH-A687, SGH-A697, SGH-A767, SGH-A777, SGH-A797, SGHA837, SGH-A867, SGH-A877, SGH-A887, SGH-A897, SGH-A927, SGH-I317, SGHI547, SGH-I577, SGH-I617, SGH-I627, SGH-I637, SGH-I667, SGH-I717, SGH-I727,
SGH-I747, SGH-I777, SGH-I827, SGH-I847, SGH-I857, SGH-I897, SGH-I907, SGHI917, SGH-I927, SGH-I937, SGH-I997, SGH-T119, SGH-T359, SGH-T469, SGH-T479,
SGH-T499, SGH-T559, SGH-T589, SGH-T659, SGH-T669, SGH-T679, SGH-T749,
SGH-T759, SGH-T769, SGH-T839, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SGH-T919, SGH-T929,
SGH-T939, SGH-T959, SGH-T959V, SGH-T989, SGH-T999, and SPH-I350. Further
discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
57.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘233 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘233 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘233 Patent. Moreover, the ‘233 Patent, inter alia, was
presented to Samsung during licensing negotiations in the months before the filing of this
lawsuit. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘233 Patent has damaged and will
continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT VIII.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘474 PATENT
58.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-57 as though
fully set forth herein.
-20McKool 396259v5
59.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘474 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘474 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices
that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘474 Patent include, but are not limited to, at
least the GT-I9020A, SCH-I200, SCH-I405, SCH-I405U, SCH-I510, SCH-I515, SCHI535, SCH-I605, SCH-L710, SCH-R530, SCH-R900, SCH-R910, SCH-R915, SCH-R920,
SCH-R930, SCH-R940, SCH-R950, SGH-A157, SGH-A667, SGH-A687, SGH-A797,
SGH-I317, SGH-I547, SGH-I577, SGH-I667, SGH-I717, SGH-I727, SGH-I747, SGHI777, SGH-I897, SGH-I927, SPH-L710, SGH-I957, SCH-I905, SCH-I815, SGH-T759,
SGH-T839, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SPH-L300, SGH-T959V, SPH-L900, and the
Samsung Evolved Node B Macrocell, Evolved Node B U-RAS Compact, Evolved Node B
Picocell, and Evolved Node B Femtocell.
Further discovery may reveal additional
infringing products and/or models.
60.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘474 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘474 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘474 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘474
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
-21McKool 396259v5
COUNT IX.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘417 PATENT
61.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-60 as though
fully set forth herein.
62.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘417 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘417 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. Defendants’ wireless communication devices
that infringe the claims of the ‘417 Patent include, but are not limited to, at least the
Samsung SCH-I200, SCH-I405, SCH-I405U, SCH-I510, SCH-I515, SCH-I535, SCHI605, SCH-L710, SCH-R530, SCH-R900, SCH-R910, SCH-R915, SCH-R920, SCHR930, SCH-R940, SCH-R950, SGH-I317, SGH-I547, SGH-I577, SGH-I667, SGH-I717,
SGH-I727, SGH-I747, SGH-I897, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SPH-L300, SPH-L710, SPHL900, SGH-I957, SCH-I905, SCH-I815, and the Samsung Evolved Node B Macrocell,
Evolved Node B U-RAS Compact, Evolved Node B Picocell, and Evolved Node B
Femtocell. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
63.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘417 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘417 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
-22McKool 396259v5
not to sue with respect to the ‘417 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘417
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT X.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘592 PATENT
64.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-63 as though
fully set forth herein.
65.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘592 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘592 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. Defendants’ wireless communication devices
that infringe the claims of the ‘592 Patent include, but are not limited to, at least the
Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing
products and/or models.
66.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘592 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘592 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘592 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘592
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
-23McKool 396259v5
COUNT XI.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘078 PATENT
67.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-66 as though
fully set forth herein.
68.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘078 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘078 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. The accused wireless communication devices
that infringe the one or more claims of the ‘078 Patent include, but are not limited to, at
least the Samsung Captivate Galaxy S (SGH-I897).
Further discovery may reveal
additional infringing products and/or models.
69.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘078 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘078 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘078 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘078
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT XII.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘709 PATENT
70.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-69 as though
fully set forth herein.
-24McKool 396259v5
71.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘709 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘709 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. Defendants’ wireless communication devices
that infringe the claims of the ‘709 Patent include, but are not limited to, at least the
Samsung SCH-I200, SCH-I405, SCH-I405U, SCH-I510, SCH-I515, SCH-I535, SCHI605, SCH-L710, SCH-R530, SCH-R900, SCH-R910, SCH-R915, SCH-R920, SCHR930, SCH-R940, SCH-R950, SGH-I317, SGH-I547, SGH-I577, SGH-I667, SGH-I717,
SGH-I727, SGH-I747, SGH-I897, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SPH-L300, SPH-L710, SPHL900, SGH-I957, SCH-I905, SCH-I815, and the Samsung Evolved Node B Macrocell,
Evolved Node B U-RAS Compact, Evolved Node B Picocell, and Evolved Node B
Femtocell. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
72.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘709 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘709 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘709 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘709
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
-25McKool 396259v5
COUNT XIII.
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘150 PATENT
73.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-72 as though
fully set forth herein.
74.
Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
induced infringement of the ‘150 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or
importing into the United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer
for sale, or sell in the United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more
claims of the ‘150 Patent including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, tablet
computers, base stations, and/or other devices with wireless capabilities, components
thereof and products containing the same. Defendants’ wireless communication devices
that infringe the claims of the ‘150 Patent include, but are not limited to, at least the
Samsung GT-I9020A, SCH-I200, SCH-I405, SCH-I405U, SCH-I510, SCH-I515, SCHI535, SCH-I605, SCH-L710, SCH-R530, SCH-R900, SCH-R910, SCH-R915, SCH-R920,
SCH-R930, SCH-R940, SCH-R950, SGH-A157, SGH-A667, SGH-A687, SGH-A797,
SGH-I317, SGH-I547, SGH-I577, SGH-I667, SGH-I717, SGH-I727, SGH-I747, SGHI777, SGH-I897, SGH-I927, SPH-L710, SGH-I957, SCH-I905, SCH-I815, SGH-T759,
SGH-T839, SGH-T879, SGH-T889, SPH-L300, SGH-T959V, SPH-L900, and the
Samsung Evolved Node B Macrocell, Evolved Node B U-RAS Compact, Evolved Node B
Picocell, and Evolved Node B Femtocell.
Further discovery may reveal additional
infringing products and/or models.
75.
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘150 Patent has been willful.
Upon
information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their actions would cause
direct infringement of the ‘150 Patent and did so with intent to encourage direct
-26McKool 396259v5
infringement. Defendants were previously the beneficiaries of a license and/or a covenant
not to sue with respect to the ‘150 Patent. Defendants’ continued infringement of the ‘150
Patent has damaged and will continue to damage Ericsson.
COUNT XIV.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
76.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-75 as though
fully set forth herein.
77.
Samsung is a member of the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute (“ETSI”) and the Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”), which are
standards-setting organizations responsible for standardization of information and
communication technologies for the benefit of their members and third parties.
78.
Samsung Electronics has declared, asserted and/or otherwise represented to
ETSI that certain of Samsung Electronics’s patents are essential to compliance with
standards promulgated by ETSI and 3GPP (“Samsung Electronics’s Allegedly StandardEssential Patents”).
79.
As a member of ETSI, and to comply with ETSI’s Intellectual Property
Rights (“IPR”) Policy, Samsung Electronics represented to ETSI, ETSI members, and third
parties that it would grant irrevocable licenses to certain of Samsung Electronics’s patents,
including but not limited to Samsung Electronics’s Allegedly Standard-Essential Patents
on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and conditions. The ETSI
IPR Policy specifies that it “shall be governed by the laws of France.” Clause 12. As a
member of 3GPP, Samsung is bound to comply with the ETSI IPR Policy in regard to any
patents essential to 3GPP standards.
-27McKool 396259v5
80.
Samsung Electronics’s ETSI membership and other activities, including the
declarations it made to comply with ETSI’s IPR Policy, created an express and/or implied
contract with ETSI, ETSI members, and/or third parties that Samsung Electronics would
license its patents on FRAND terms and conditions for certain of the Samsung
Electronics’s patents, including but not limited to Samsung Electronics’s Allegedly
Standard-Essential Patents.
81.
Samsung Electronics has refused to grant Ericsson a license to certain of
Samsung Electronics’s patents, including but not limited to Samsung Electronics’s
Allegedly Standard-Essential Patents on FRAND terms and conditions.
82.
With respect to any of Samsung Electronics’s patent(s) declared, asserted,
represented or otherwise found to be standard essential, Samsung Electronics’s refusal
constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations to 2G and 3G standard bodies, including
ETSI and 3GPP, to members thereof, and to third parties. Ericsson is a third party
beneficiary of this promise and has standing to sue for its breach. Samsung Electronics’s
breach deprives members and third parties of licenses thereto.
83.
As a proximate result of Samsung Electronics’s breach, Ericsson has
incurred damages and will be further damaged in the future.
COUNT XV.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
84.
Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-82 as though
fully set forth herein.
85.
In the course of its participation in ETSI, Samsung Electronics represented
to ETSI, ETSI members, and third parties that it would grant irrevocable licenses to
-28McKool 396259v5
Samsung Electronics’s Allegedly Standard-Essential Patents on FRAND terms and
conditions.
86.
Samsung Electronics’s ETSI membership and activities, including the
declarations it made to comply with ETSI’s IPR Policy for Samsung Electronics’s
Allegedly Standard-Essential Patents, created a false and misleading impression among
ETSI, ETSI members (including Ericsson), and/or third parties that Samsung Electronics
would license those patents on FRAND terms and conditions.
87.
In reliance on Samsung Electronics’s representations, Ericsson made
substantial investments in the research, design, development, manufacture, and marketing
of telecommunications equipment and technology.
88.
As a result, Ericsson will be harmed materially if Samsung Electronics is
permitted to assert Samsung Electronics’s Allegedly Standard-Essential Patents to prevent
Ericsson from importing and/or selling telecommunications equipment and technology.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Ericsson hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Ericsson respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
their favor and grant the following relief:
A.
Adjudge that the Defendants infringe the Ericsson Patents;
B.
Adjudge that the Defendants’ infringement of the Ericsson Patents was
willful, and that Defendants’ continued infringement of the Ericsson Patents
is willful;
-29McKool 396259v5
C.
Award Ericsson damages in an amount adequate to compensate Ericsson for
the Defendants’ infringement of the Ericsson Patents, but in no event less
than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D.
Award enhanced damages by reason of the Defendants’ willful
infringement of the Ericsson Patents, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
E.
Award Ericsson pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent
allowed under the law, as well as its costs;
F.
Enter an order finding that this is an exceptional case and awarding
Ericsson its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G.
Enter an injunction enjoining Defendants, and all others in active concert
with Defendants, from further infringement of the Ericsson Patents;
H.
Adjudge that Samsung Electronics’s commitment to license patents they
claim are essential to a standard adopted by an industry standard-setting
group on FRAND terms is a binding contractual obligation, enforceable by
Ericsson;
I.
Adjudge that Samsung Electronics’s refusal to provide Ericsson a license on
FRAND terms, despite their obligation to do so, is a breach of contract;
J.
Order specific performance, requiring that Samsung Electronics offer
Ericsson a license on FRAND terms for any patent claim that Samsung
Electronics contends or has alleged in any context is necessary to
implement a standard adopted by an industry standard-setting group;
K.
Award Ericsson damages in an amount adequate to compensate Ericsson for
the Defendants’ breach of contract and equitable estoppel .
-30McKool 396259v5
L.
Adjudge that any patent claim that Samsung Electronics contends or has
alleged in any context is necessary to implement a standard adopted by an
industry standard-setting group is unenforceable against Ericsson;
M.
Enter an injunction enjoining Defendants, and all others in active concert
with Defendants, from enforcing any patent claim that Samsung Electronics
contends or has alleged in any context is necessary to implement a standard
adopted by an industry standard-setting group;
N.
Enter an injunction requiring Defendants, and all others in active concert
with Defendants, to license any patent claim that Samsung Electronics
contends or has alleged in any context is necessary to implement a standard
adopted by an industry standard-setting group on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms to Ericsson;
O.
Order an accounting for damages;
P.
Award a compulsory future royalty for any Ericsson Patent for which an
injunction is not entered;
Q.
Award Ericsson attorney’s fees based on their breach of contract and
equitable estoppel claims; and
R.
Award such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under
the circumstances.
-31McKool 396259v5
Dated: November 27, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
By: /s/ Theodore Stevenson III._
Mike McKool, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 13732100
mmckool@mckoolsmith.com
Douglas A. Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
Theodore Stevenson III
Texas State Bar No. 19196650
tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
Sam Baxter
Texas State Bar No. 01938000
sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
P.O. Box O
Marshall, Texas 75671
Telephone: (903) 923-9000
Fax: (903) 923-9099
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
ERICSSON INC. and
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
ERICSSON
-32McKool 396259v5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.